“Eurocommunism” or Undisguised Revisionism

From “Zëri i Popullit”, organ of the CC of the PLA,
dated December 4, 1977.

One of the variants of modern revisionism is that which is called “Eurocommunism”.
Its most outstanding representatives are the Spanish, French and Italian revisionist parties.
According to the meaning its authors give it, “Eurocommunism” means
communism of the developed capitalist countries of Western Europe. In
reality this so-called communism has nothing in common with genuine
communism.

Explaining what revisionist policy is in a well-known and always actual article entitled:
“Marxism and Revisionism”. In 1908 Lenin wrote among other things:

“To determine its conduct from case to case, to adapt itself to the
events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics,
to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic
features of the whole capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution,
to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages
of the moment – such is the policy of revisionism”. And Lenin went on
to add that “every more or less 'new' question, every more or less
unexpected and unforeseen turn of events, even though it changes the
basic line of development only to insignificant degree and only for the
briefest period, will always inevitably give rise to one variety of
revisionism or another”.

In short, "Eurocommunism” is nothing else but the emergence of a new
variant of revisionism, as predicted by Lenin some seventy years ago.
Thus, after the notorious Titoite and Khrushchevite variants, we are
now seeing the West European variant of revisionism. We must add that
there are also other variants of modern revisionism, but in this
article we will deal only with "Eurocommunism” and the
“Eurocommunists”.

Like all the other revisionists, the Eurocommunists, too, proceed from
Khrushchev's notorious thesis on the peaceful transition to socialism.
Not long ago, on the 13th of October this year, one of the principal
representatives of "Eurocommunism”, the General Secretary of the French
revisionist party, George Marchais, stated: “What did we decide at our
latest (22nd) Congress? We decided to make democracy (read: bourgeois
democracy) and freedom in all its aspects, a simultaneous instrument of
our struggle for the transformation of society and the fundamental
dimension of the socialism we want for France”. In a word, the French
arch-revisionist wants to reassure the bourgeoisie that his party has
renounced the key principles of Marxism-Leninism – proletarian
revolution, class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Berlinguer in Italy and Carrillo in Spain are doing the same thing for
the bourgeoisie of their own countries. With their assurances that they
have renounced class struggle, revolution and the dictatorship of the
proletariat, they reassure it, some covertly and others overtly, that
they have renounced and rejected the entire doctrine of scientific
socialism. They have rejected not only Stalin but also Lenin, Marx and
Engels. In recent times the Italian revisionists declared officially
that they will remove all reference to Marxism-Leninism, as the
ideology of the party or as the basis of its policy, from all the
documents of their party.

In disguised terms, this is also revealed by Marchais in the above
mentioned statement when he says: “We have reflected a great deal about
our experience, about the reality and demands of a country like France.
There is no question of us seeking to replace the present day
privileged people with other privileged people, bureaucracy with
another bureaucracy, one ruling party with another ruling party, a man
of providence with another man of providence”. In these few phrases of
Marchais' one can find merged into one all the theses of the modern
revisionists, from Gilas and Tito to Khrushchev and others. Here,
slightly camouflaged, there is also a frontal attack on Lenin and
Stalin, because it is they he is alluding to when he speaks of "another
man of providence”, going so far as to place the great leaders of the
world proletariat on a par with the so-called “men of providence” whom
the bourgeoisie of France and other Western countries turns out
according to the occasion and circumstances.

Usually, the revisionists do not express their ideas so openly, they
try to hide their betrayal of the working class of the respective
countries behind empty words about changing situations, democracy,
freedom, etc. But the "Eurocommunists” act somewhat differently. Thus,
one of the three main "Eurocommunist” parties, that of Spain, came out
openly with its theses, which are the real theses of this variant of
revisionism. It did this through its General Secretary, Santiago
Carrillo, who posing as a theoretician, in a book of his entitled
"Eurocommunism and the State”, and in a series of statements to the
press, the radio and television of the Western countries has tried to
codify the theory and practice of Eurocommunism.

He reveals that the Eurocommunists are supporters and admirers of the
bourgeois state, which they want to preserve intact, that they are
supporters of the supranational state the capitalist countries of
Western Europe are trying to create, and which will have the Common
Market as its basis.

In Carrillo, and in the final account, in Marchais and Berlinguer as
well, just as in any revisionist, we have to do not with a theoretician
but with a charlatan, who performs like a petty provincial advocate
always ready to take up the most dishonest cases and defend them,
stopping before no fabrication. In his articles and statements, he
manipulates with quotations from the texts of the great teachers of
Marxism, with events detached from international life, or
administrative acts of different governments to suit the purposes of
the defence of his theses, interpreting them in the most arbitrary way.

Carrillo and his party are the first among the European revisionists,
or Eurocommunists, to renounce the notion of the dictatorship of the
proletariat publicly, followed by Marchais and the French revisionist
party. “The capitalist state”, says Carrillo, “is a reality. Which are
its present characteristics? How must it be transformed? This is the
problem of every revolution including the one we intend to realize
through the democratic road of many parliamentary parties”. These few
lines summarize the essence of all the preoccupations of the
"theoretician”. But, sensing all the falsity of his position,
understanding that this is an open, unscrupulous revision of
Marxism-Leninism, the Spanish dwarf, against all evidence, tries to
convince the others that allegedly even the giants of Marxism have
constantly “revised” their doctrine and one another as well!. And in
this connection, without bothering that his quotations are irrelevant
and out of context, here Carrillo brings a passage from Marx, there he
haphazardly cites Lenin and eyen Stalin, whom, though he calls him a
criminal, he tries to make his forerunner in the achievement of the
transformation of the state on the parliamentary road. As proof of his
thesis, the "Eurocommunist” falsifier reproduces a letter, from the
great man of the Soviet State to the head of the Spanish Government of
the People's Front, the socialist Largo Caballero, in 1936, at the time
of the Spanish Civil War. But this rabid anti-Stalinist does not
understand that, instead of proving his thesis, this letter reveals the
great correctness of Stalin in his relations with other states, pulls
down the whole fabric of calumnies of the Khrushchevites, Titoites,
Eurocommunists, Trotskyites and many others on Stalin's alleged
interference, even plots, in the other countries.

To substantiate his assessments of the alleged changes in the structure
and functions of the capitalist state and the “growing socialization of
the capitalist economy”, this theoretician of the Paris cafes and this
great admirer of the bourgeois state resorts to such ludicrous
arguments, as, for, example, the decision of the French Government to
“provide billions of francs as compensation for the farmers and
stockraisers affected by the 1975 drought”, a gesture, which, according
to him, could never have occurred in the past. Here Carrillo means: you
see how the state has changed? It is no longer the state of the
capitalist bourgeoisie alone, as it helps the peasants in need. In the
past, too, for political or electoral expediencies of the moment, the
French Government or the other Western Governments have distributed
alms in cases of calamity, but it has never occurred to anyone to gee
in such acts a change in the nature of the bourgeois states. This is
seen only by renegades of the Carrillo, Marchais and Berlinguer type.

The modern revisionists, ranging from Tito to Khrushchev and others,
based their attack against Marxism-Leninism on the campaign against
Stalin, a campaign which, as our Party had long since warned, was
nothing' else but an offensive against Leninism and would lead to the
complete abandonment of the doctrine of Lenin and Marx. Carrillo,
however, openly attacks all and everything of Marxism-Leninism. This
unscrupulous intriguer does not hesitate to reject right off the entire
Marxist-Leninist theory on classes and class struggle, proletarian
revolution and the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a
collection of dogmas which are inapplicable to our time.

Expressing and' repeating all the dreams and fancies of bourgeois
politicians, theoreticians and publicists, the Eurocommunists claim –
and Carrillo says it openly – that the present-day proletariat is no
longer that of the time of Marx, that it has changed. According to them
the other classes of society have also changed. They are no longer the
classes Marx and Lenin have spoken about.

According to this renegade who represents the theses of the bourgeois
lumpen intellectuals, it is not the proletariat alone which is the most
progressive class of society, which fights and leads the struggle for
socialism, but all the classes, some more and others less, and above
all, the intelligentsia, which he puts on a par with the proletariat.
And here Carrillo does nothing else but copies and repeats the
notorious ultra-opportunist thesis of the French revisionist
philosopher Garaudy. Although 30 per cent of the Spanish population
works and lives in the countryside, the peasantry, which made such a
great contribution in blood in the Spanish Civil War, is not only not
considered as the ally of the proletariat, but this so-called
theoretician completely ignores its existence. According to Carrillo,
all the classes are interested in a change in society and for this to
be achieved the old society must be reformed and not overthrown.

After laying down the extravagant premise that the state is no longer
that of the time of Marx and Lenin and that the classes are no longer
those of their time, Carrillo, together with the other Eurocommunists,
arrives at the conclusion that now there is another way for the
proletariat to seize power and build socialism.

Marx said that class struggle inevitably leads to the dictatorship of
the proletariat and Lenin considered the dictatorship of the
proletariat as the essence of Marxist theory. The renegade Carrillo
rejects this, he rejects the theory of the revolution, of the class
struggle, of the seizure of power through violence, he rejects the role
of the party of the proletariat and the leading role of the proletariat
in the revolution. He turns back completely to the positions of
social-democracy of the twenties when the soundest and the most
revolutionary elements broke away from it and created the communist
parties and adhered to the Third International. Carrillo goes even
further, he preaches that society will be changed through the
development of culture, turning the ideological apparatus of the
bourgeois state (the Church, the university, etc.) to the advantage of
the people.

The General Secretary of the Spanish revisionist party sets out on the
road to his Eurocommunist state from the back- streets of the Catholic
Church. According to him, the Church, the Vatican and the Pope of Rome
himself have changed, have evolved towards a more progressive society.
And this is allegedly proved by the Second Vatican Council. The
clerical hierarchy has allegedly commenced to have its doubts about the
possibilities of capitalism. Carrillo, this pontiff of Eurocommunism,
as the French newspaper “Le Monde” described him in one of its latest
issues, who unsparingly employs ecclesiastical terminology, shakes
hands with the clergymen who have “evolved in their dogmas”. And after
energetically shaking hands with them, he calls on the Eurocommunists
to reject all dogmas (that is Marxism-Leninism) so that “they may
become more progressive than the Church and the Vatican.”

It is now a fact universally known and confirmed by broad inquiries
published in the Western press, that more and more believers are
abandoning the Churches of Western Europe, even in those areas which
used to be the bastions of religion. In France, for example, since
liberation to date, religious practice has declined to ten per cent of
the population. The situation is the same in Belgium and other
countries. Finding it difficult to recruit new priests, the Church is
obliged to resort to the services of itinerant priests.

Faced with such a situation, the Church plays on many boards and
recoils from nothing. It plays with the demagogy of “worker priests”,
with the demagogy of the tiermondist (third world) current of the
Church, but also with the more conservative priests, as was recently
the case with Bishop Lefevre, about whom a great fuss is being made.
And precisely at such a difficult time, the Catholic Church, this
bastion of capitalist reaction and mediaeval obscurantism, is being
lent a helping hand by allies it has never hoped for, the Carrillos,
Berlinguers, Garaudys and other Euro-communists.

The French revisionist Garaudy, one of the teachers in the theory of
Santiago Carrillo, taking the cue from a document released by the
bishops of France, enthusiastically pronounced himself in July this
year for a “reciprocal fecundation between Christianity and Marxism”.
According to him, there is no irreconcilability between Christianity
and Marxism, because the “communist movement now has fewer and fewer
Stalinists and more and more Santiago Carrillos". After quoting
examples from the Spanish revisionist party “in which Christians and
even priests are admitted to all levels of party leadership”, Garaudy
exclaims exultantly: “Here is the future intended for a long term: a
major historic change in which both Christians and Marxists will each
in an equal manner bring about new dimensions”. Things cannot be said
more clearly.

The merging of Marxism with Catholic religion, this is the aim of the
Garaudys. This is what Berlinguer is implementing in Italy, as is shown
in his letter to the bishop of Ivrea. And this is what Santiago
Carrillo and all the other Eurocommunists are trying to put into
practice. The Catholic Church may one day make these people its saints,
and it has the right to do it.

When for the Eurocommunists, the Church and the Vatican, despite their
20 centuries-long obscurantist and reactionary tradition, have changed
as if by magic, the remainder of the ideological apparatus of
capitalism has also changed, and long since at that, for them.
Education, for instance, says the Spanish renegade, has assumed a mass
character and has brought about a real revolution in society. According
to him, this education has a popular and not an aristocratic character,
as before. The class essence of the school does not even exist for
Carrillo. Here he considers nothing else but the number of students.
But even here, had he taken into consideration only the quantitative
aspect of the question, he would haves been obliged to admit, although
he cannot fail to know it, that in, the universities of all the
countries of Western Europe the number of workers' sons and daughters
does not exceed even 2 per cent.

The schools, and especially the universities, have been centres from
where progressive and revolutionary ideas have always been spread,
where progressive ideas have always clashed fiercely with the
reactionary ones. Therefore to order to confuse :and paralyze the
student youth, to lead it away from the working class, the bourgeoisie
employs its entire ideological apparatus, as well as its lackeys: the
Trotskyites, anarchists, and especially, the revisionist parties and
their huge apparatus in Italy, France and Spain; Carrillo tries
toelevate to a theory and justify theoretically this lackey role of the
revisionists.

Carrillo considers the family as another aspect of the ideological
apparatus of the capitalist state, which according to him, has changed
and within which a struggle is going on between children and parents.
Rejecting class struggle as a dogma, Carrillo embraces the ideas of
bourgeois sociologists and the American pseudo-theoretician Marcuse on
the “conflict of generations”.

But the Spanish servant of the bourgeoisie goes even further. Claiming
that the youth oppose the ideas of their parents and their dogmas, he
pretends that the youth of today, the sons and daughters of workers and
revolutionaries, the sons and daughters of those who fought and shed
their blood against fascism in Spain, reject the ideas and ideals of
scientific communism as a “dogma”.

Thus, according to Carrillo, by winning over the ideological apparatus
of the bourgeoisie, one will gradually move towards an ever greater
democracy and a state which will belong to all. But what will be done
with the repressive apparatus of the bourgeois state? Even this
presents no difficulty for the theoretical mountebank. The police? In
Italy it votes for the party of Berlinguer, he says.Why
shouldn't it then vote for Marchais in France and for Carrillo and for
Dolores Ibarruri in Spain? The Eurocommunists should accept the state
apparatus without destroying it, even the army, set up and armed by the
bourgeoisie. The Eurocommunists should work for a democratic
transformation of the military mentality. But can this be achieved with
military castes created and educated over the centuries to be the armed
hand of the bourgeois state? Carrillo says, yes, and as an example of
this he brings the French Army, which according to him has been
"democratized” following the war in Algeria, as is seen... from some of
its rules from which he quotes at random. Even the most conservative
French newspaper, or an agent in the pay of the Deuxieme Bureau would
not dare to praise the French Army in such a manner.

The bad luck
with the pseudo-theories of the renegades from the working class is
that the events give the lie to them before the ink has dried on the
paper. Thus, at a time when Carrillo was lauding to the skies the
democratic transformation of the French Army, breaking with past rules,
the French Government decided that military regions and garrisons would
be spread all over the territory of metropolitan France. This
dissemination of garrisons is explained by the concern of the French
ruling circles about a change in the situation not only inside France,
but also in that which is called the South of Europe. To please the
bourgeoisie and prove their loyalty to it, the Italian and French
Eurocommunists have gone so far as to justify NATO and the presence of
US troops and bases in Western Europe.

With a road to socialism like this, Carrillo and all the other
revisionists reject the role of the party, deny democratic centralism.
As far as the party is concerned, they have borrowed the concept of the
party of all the people from the Khrushchevite revisionists and have
turned it into the concept of pluralism of parties. For the economy,
they have adopted the Titoite methods of self-administration. And from
the other revisionists, they have adopted the pluralism of cultures,
the competition of philosophical trends, religious currents.

It is impossible to follow step by step within the limits of one
article, all the "Opinions” and "arguments” of the Eurocommunists which
expose and prove the treachery of the modern revisionists in all its
aspects. But one must mention here the international environment of the
state of the Eurocommunists, and how Carrillo sees this environment.
This environment is nothing else but the Atlantic environment. Carrillo
and his party are in favour of the Common Market, NATO and Spain's
accession to them. They are for the unification of the Europe of
monopolies and trusts, presenting it, like the partisans of the “theory
of three worlds” and the social democrats, as the "Europe of the
peoples”. All of them are for the so-called third international force,
which is allegedly opposed to the two superpowers, but which in reality
is opposed only to the European proletariat and the peoples that it
exploits, that is, they are for the big bourgeoisie and the big
European capitalist monopolies. In this "strategy” the Eurocommunists
and the advocates of the "theory of three worlds” have lined up on the
same front and are fighting on the same barricade. The Eurocommunists
and the other revisionists, though they may have contrasting views on
this problem or that, are at one in the main thing, they unite with the
bourgeoisie and imperialism in struggle against the revolution and
Marxism-Leninism.

“A United States of Europe under capitalism”, said Lenin, “is either impossible or reactionary”. “Of course”, he added, "temporary agreements
between capitalists and between states are possible. In this sense a
United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists...,
but what for? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in
Europe”. The Marxist-Leninists do not doubt and have never doubted that
this is the aim of all the renegades from Marxism-Leninism.

All these "opinions” publicly advertised by Carrillo with the
shamelessness typical of all renegades, are not the opinions of him
alone, but also those of Dolores Ibarruri and of the Spanish
revisionist party. They are a mosaic of the theses of all those who
have tried to revise the great and always triumphant doctrine of Marx,
Engels, Lenin and Stalin. In Carrillo we see Bernstein, Kautsky,
Browder, Tito, Khrushchev, Togliatti, his teachers in revisionism,
Berlinguer and Marchais, his companions on the "Eurocommunist” road. In
Carrillo we also see the influence of a number of so-called theories,
such as those of Sartre, Marcuse, of the present-day European
Trotskyites and anarchists, mixed with the theories of the chiefs of
Western social-democracy, and especially with those of Leon Blum who in
an almost forgotten book entitled “A l'echelle humaine” (On a Human
Scale), about 10 years before Khrushchev and 30 years before Carrillo
indicated the "peaceful road to socialism”, a road which went also
through the White House in Washington and the Vatican. The opinions of
the Spanish renegade are nothing else but rubbish collected from the
troughs of capitalism and revisionism and thrown together in the book
called "Eurocommunism and the State”.

Eurocommunism emerged as a doctrine and was codified by Carrillo at a
time when the Spanish bourgeoisie, that of the nine European Community
countries and the US bourgeoisie together with the NATO and Common
Market headquarters demanded to be reassured about the transition of
power which would take place in Francoist Spain. Terrified by the
working class and the revolution, and continuing to be haunted by the
spectre of the Paris Commune after its suppression more than 100 years
ago, the reactionaries are used to see red everywhere. Carrillo is
dispelling their fears. That is why the representatives of the
bourgeoisie have been lavish in their eulogies of the Spanish
“theoretician”, who recently went even to the USA, so that the American
capitalists could see and convince themselves that the Eurocommunists
are "gentlemen” and very useful “businessmen”, with whom they can come
to terms.

But the representatives of world capitalism and imperialism are
rejoicing a little prematurely in their great expectations from
Carrillo. It is true that Carrillo is one of the vilest agents of world
capitalism, but precisely as such he is utterly worthless. His
"theories” will not bring much benefit to capitalism, because he
exposes the pseudo-Marxism of the modern revisionists, tears the mask
off them, reveals their real aims to the proletariat and the peoples
who are fighting for social and national liberation.

This is precisely the reason why the other revisionists, first and
foremost the Soviet revisionists, are worried over Carrillo's sermons.
This scum of the revisionist scum, caring for and embarrassed by
nothing, dared to develop further and carry through to the end the
theses of the Khrushchevite revisionists, and in the first place, the
fundamental thesis of modern revisionism, namely, that of the “peaceful
transition to socialism”, with which are linked the other theses, such
as that of the change of the nature of imperialism, of a world without
weapons and wars, of the party of the entire people and the state of
the entire people.

From the very start the Party of Labour of Albania and comrade Enver
Hoxha showed that these theses of Khrushchev's were a great betrayal of
Marxism-Leninism, the cause of socialism and communism. Life has proved
and is continually proving our Party right. It is proving that the
revisionists are getting bogged down more and more deeply in the morass
of opportunism and bourgeois degeneration.

The Khrushchev clique, and subsequently that of Brezhnev have tried to
manoeuvre and avoid the exposure of all the cards of their betrayal.
And here now is Carrillo, their collaborator, exposing their aims, and
openly showing what the theses of the 20th Congress are. This is not
only a slap but a heavy blow at them as well, because in order to hide
their betrayal, the Khrushchevite revisionists must pass themselves off
as Marxist-Leninists and still look so if they cling to some Leninist
formulae. Immediately after the 20th Congress the Italian
arch-revisionist, Palmiro Togliatti, was the first to demand that the
Soviet revisionists should advance at a fast pace on the road of their
Congress. Under the new conditions, however, Carrillo is going even
further than the spiritual father of the Eurocommunists. He analyzes
their theses one by one, looks into their logic and demands that they
should be carried out to the letter. Carrillo tells the Soviet
revisionists that the theses they put forward call for open rejection
not only of Stalin, but also of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and this not
only on one, but on all questions. He says that the road of the October
Revolution, and together with it, the dictatorship of the proletariat,
the role of the party, the hegemonic role of the proletariat, must be
rejected. He says that the entire Marxist-Leninist theory and treasure
must be revised in every field – ideology, politics, economics.
Carrillo says that peaceful coexistence and the peaceful road to
socialism call for a status quo not only in the field of international
relations, in the preservation of military pacts, alliances, economic
groupings, but also a status quo within every country, the preservation
of the bourgeois state, of its repressive organs and ideological
apparatuses. He demands of the Soviet revisionists, the Titoites and
others to grant full freedom to the "dissidents”, to act so as to allow
the pluralism of parties, cultures, philosophical trends, etc. He
proceeds even further. He openly tells the Soviets that since they have
rehabilitated so many traitors sentenced at Moscow trials, they must
not stop half way. Since they have taken one step they must take the
other: they must rehabilitate Trotsky. Likewise he bluntly tells the
Soviets and the other revisionists that as long as they receive huge
credits from the US imperialists, why, then, the Spanish Eurocommunist
state should not receive such credits? He also says many other things
as well, which expose the Soviet revisionists badly. All this is too
serious a thing for them, it scorches them like hot iron. Therefore,
they began to reproach Carrillo, but limited their target of attack
only to his book, and only to one aspect of this book. Without going
into the essence of the matter, or dealing with what Carrillo demands
of them and the other revisionists, the Soviet revisionists express
only their regret that, in his book, Carrillo attacks Marx, Engels and
Lenin. The Soviet revisionists are thus trying to avail themselves of
the opportunity offered them by the publication of the book to pose as
champions of the theory of Marx and Lenin, which they were the first to
discard.

But the Soviet revisionists are worried over another question as well.
Having abandoned Marxism-Leninism and betrayed the interests of the
working class, having transformed the first state of workers and
peasants into a social-imperialist bourgeois state, unwillingly and
against their interests, the Soviet revisionists opened the road to
nationalist and centrifugal tendencies in all the revisionist parties
and to tendencies to rapprochement, groupings and meetings between
various open or hidden revisionists. Thus the “Eurocommunist” parties,
servants of the bourgeoisie of their respective countries, express and
defend each the interests of his own bourgeoisie, which run contrary to
the interests of the Soviet bourgeoisie. The Soviet revisionists thus
suffered the same fate with the magician who let the devils out of the
jar and could not call them together.

In his report at the 7th Congress comrade Enver Hoxha said, “The Party
of Labour of Albania long ago said that modern revisionism, like the
earlier revisionism of Bernstein and Kautsky, can never build that
cohesion, that steel-like unity which only Marxism-Leninism, the
scientific ideology of the working class, is in a position to do.
Revisionism is synonymous with splits, lack of unify, chauvinism and
anarchy. Our Party was convinced that, despite their slogans that they
were ‘independent’, ‘sovereign’ and ‘capable’ of applying the
Marxist-Leninist theory in the conditions of their own countries, the
revisionist parties would not only break away from the Soviet Union and
the so-called ‘socialist family’, but would become involved, as they
have done, in irreconcilable conflicts with one another”.

Carrillo's writings, stands and statements are worrying his comrades in
Eurocommunism – Marchais, Berlinguer and their parties. While in August
this year the Western press published extensive statements of the
Spanish renegade in defence of Eurocommunism, Santiago Carrillo was
attending a symposium on “Eurosocialism” in Crete, in which the chiefs
of European social-democracy, together with the revisionist Garaudy who
has been expelled from the French revisionist party, were taking part.
With this participation in the symposium in Crete, Carrillo showed that
there is no dividing line between Eurocommunism and Eurosocialism. This
is not to the liking of Marchais, because it exposes him in the eyes of
the French working class which has a long and bitter experience of the
treacherous role of the socialist party. It has good knowledge of Leon
Blum's slogans, that “the socialists are sincere administrators of the
capitalist society”, put into practice by the socialist party. It has
also known the police dogs and the bullets of Jules Moch, the socialist
home affairs minister in the post-war French Government.

As far as Berlinguer and the Italian revisionist party are concerned,
they have put into practice what Carrillo claims to have raised to a
theory, and are continuing on “the road to socialism” which goes
through the “historic compromise” with Christian democracy and the
Vatican. The Italian revisionist party has concluded a joint agreement
with the Christian democrats and the other bourgeois parties, on which
the program of the present government is based. At the same time,
together with the other parties, it is striving to vest the police and
the gendarmerie with emergency powers to control and spy on the
citizens in the name of the "defence of law and order”.

They are integrating revisionism into capitalism, but it is not in
their interest to kick up a row, to be reminded of the police of Rome
voting for them, which logically means that the Italian revisionist
party collaborates with the police. Berlinguer and Co. have learned the
method of “combinations” from the bourgeoisie of their country and the
Church. Thus, they are for “combinations” and not for the shouts that
accompany the bullfighters in Spanish arenas.

Carrillo's theorizing in the rag called "Eurocommunism and the State”
and in his frequent statements show the rottenness and complete decay
of modern revisionism, its great betrayal and its going over completely
to the side of the bourgeoisie, imperialism and reaction. Carrillo,
Marchais, Berlinguer and Co., the revisionists of all hues, are vile
traitors and loyal lackeys of the bourgeoisie; they want to rescue it
from its inevitable doom. The present-day bourgeois and revisionist
society, however is fraught with revolution, which no force in the
world can stop. This revolution is guided and will always be guided
today and in the future, until its complete triumph throughout the
world, only by the immortal ideas of Marxism-Leninism. All the opposing
ideas which try to revise our great, unerring and ever young theory,
will end up in the garbage heap of history together with those of the
Eurocommunists which, like all such other theories, will land there
faster than all the others. They are filthy stains, which together with
capitalism, imperialism and social-imperialism will be wiped off the
face of the earth by the iron hand of the world proletariat which leads
the revolution and which is inspired by the triumphant doctrine of
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.